The Senate Environment and Public Works committee today passed the Senate's version of the cap-and-trade climate-change legislation bill - Sens. Kerry and Boxer's "Clean Energy Jobs Act." The bill passed by a 10-1 margin...with Republicans boycotting the vote.
Ah, so who's the sole Democrat that voted against the legislation?
Max Baucus.
Not that it's much of a surprise. Baucus raised "concerns" with the bill last month, saying the 20 percent reduction in carbon emissions by 2020 was too lofty a goal. Baucus' statement -- "we cannot afford a first step that takes us further away from a conceivable consensus on climate change" - hints that he'll stall the bill in the Tax and Finance committee, likely convening a "green" "Gang of Six" to gut the bill, or kill it altogether.
Frankly, Baucus should listen to Lindsey Graham, Republican:
The green economy is coming. We can either follow or lead. And those countries who follow will pay a price. Those nations who lead in creating the new green economy for the world will make money.
Or retired admiral Dennis McGinn, who reminded Montana's delegation that climate change is a national security issue.
Sadly, Dennis McDonald demonstrates how you can join Baucus in opposing climate change legislation while simultaneously keeping your enviro "cred," from his Facebook page:
Cap and trade has proven to be complex, inefficient, and an obstacle to investment in alternative energy. I think a straightforward carbon emissions tax would be a lot simpler and a more effective way of getting people to invest in alternative energy.
And the Waxman-Markey House cap-and-trade bill, with all of its faults, sets the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to 83 percent below 2005 levels by 2050. That's huge.
...Nike announced (pdf) that it is resigning from the board of directors because of the group's views on climate change policy. The Chamber was already in a tailspin this week, attempting to reclassify their position on climate policy following the departure of three major utilities.
"Nike believes US businesses must advocate for aggressive climate change legislation and that the United States needs to move rapidly into a sustainable economy to remain competitive and ensure continued economic growth," Nike said in a statement. "As we've stated, we fundamentally disagree with the US Chamber of Commerce on the issue of climate change and their recent action challenging the EPA is inconsistent with our view that climate change is an issue in need of urgent action."
(And wouldn't it be interesting to investigate whether similar splits exist in the Montana CoC?)
Meanwhile, in the wake of members abandoning the organization, the US Chamber of Commerce denies ever questioning the science behind global warming. Surprise! That is, of course, a lie.
Meanwhile, Sens. Kerry and Boxer unveiled their version of cap-and-trade legislation today. Its targeted carbon emissions levels are actually more aggressive than the House Waxman-Markey bill, which implies that some Democratic Senators, at least, learned lessons from how the healthcare reform strategy worked.
The split among the ranks of Chamber of Commerce members, too, makes the battle lines a bit murky. Will the bill pit the monolithic and anachronistic energy industry against the nation's more forward-thinking corporations? Who knows? I thought America's industries might push harder on public insurance in the healthcare debate - certainly our system's reliance on employer-provided insurance is a drag on most sectors of our economy - maybe folks should remember that these problems don't belong to a single economic sector, they belong to us all...
A few weeks ago, the Montana Chamber of Commerce's Jon Benion made a couple of half-hearted stabs at cap-and-trade legislation. In late August, Bennion pointed to some polling sponsored by the CoC did showing that "Montanans do not support cap-and-trade schemes" - and claims the Good Guv doesn't like cap-and-trade (he has "concerns") and instead prefers a carbon tax. In a later post, Benion claims any cap-and-trade bill would mean lost jobs for the state, citing a study by a group backed by oil and gas interests. Benion: "These are big price tags for a bill that would only reduce worldwide carbon emissions by a few percentage points over time."
What's going on here? Does the Chamber of Commerce seek more aggressive legislation than Waxman-Markey? A carbon tax, maybe? Something that, you know, would reduce carbon emissions by a lot of percentage points? Is the Chamber of Commerce here arguing for a more substantial government green jobs program for Montana?
Based on the rhetoric emanating from the body, it appears Montana's chapter is following the lead of the U.S. CoC.
When the Waxman-Markey bill rolled out, {the U.S. CoC} did what it always does: pretended to agree with the goal while recommending changes in the means so drastic that they would gut the bill. See this comical letter wherein it wants to "balance environmental objectives with the need for economic growth and job creation" by lowering targets, increasing free allocations, ditching the renewable energy standard, waiting for China and India to act first, completely preempting state programs, and increasing subsidies to fossil-fuel companies. This is standard operating procedure for CoC, a game it knows how to play. It lobbies for the interests of the corporate class.
And just last month, the U.S. CoC questioned climate change itself, calling for a "Scopes monkey trial of the 21st century" to put the "science of climate change on trial." (The CoC, presumably, would play the role of the doddering and near-incoherent William Jennings Bryant.)
As Roberts points out, "there's a problem" here: "many, many business[es] see enormous opportunities in the shift to clean energy." And perhaps some business owners even have children to whom they'd like to pass on a habitable planet.
Still, it was somewhat of a surprise when PG&E, in a blog post (!), yesterday announced it was leaving the CoC because of the organization's "extreme position on climate change":
We find it dismaying that the Chamber neglects the indisputable fact that a decisive majority of experts have said the data on global warming are compelling and point to a threat that cannot be ignored. In our opinion, an intellectually honest argument over the best policy response to the challenges of climate change is one thing; disingenuous attempts to diminish or distort the reality of these challenges are quite another.
So why is the U.S. CoC (and presumably Montana's chapter, based on its rhetoric) trying to derail meaningful solutions to an environmental crisis, despite many of its members eager to press forward with innovative green energy projects, not to mention concern for the future of the economy and country? Could it be that it's because U.S. CoC president Tom Donahue has a financial stake in the failure of any climate change legislation? Or that the author of the CoC's climate change policy - Montanan Donald J Sterhan - hobnobs with oil men (pdf)? Are we seeing the Good Ol' Boy network seeking to preserve environmental catastrophe...because there's a buck to made from it?
Whatever the reason, the U.S. CoC has made its decision. It stood at a crossroads - one path was the way of innovation, jobs, hope for the rebirth of the American manufacturing industry, and a clean and safe environment. The other, antiquated 19th-century technology, entrenched and inert financial interests, and a worldview that worships corporate kings. The CoC chose the latter.
If you liked how health care reform went, you'll love this:
Behind closed doors, Sen. Baucus has been staking his claim on major aspects of the climate bill, including financing for a cap-and-trade system.
His power play could put Baucus at the helm of the Obama administration's domestic agenda, giving an unpredictable Montana Democrat control over legislative proposals that could define the Democratic Party for years to come.
That sucking sound you just heard was all the effective, carbon-reducing provisions leaving the Waxman-Markey bill...
But there's also, it seems, growing opposition to cap-and-trade from people who should be on the side of progress - but whose reaction is basically "Eek! Markets!Wall Street! Speculation! Bad!"
We don't need this.
So let me talk a bit about why this reaction is 99% wrong, and bad for the planet....
By all means keep a watchful eye on speculators and regulate derivatives - and make market manipulation illegal, as Waxman-Markey does. But don't apply standards to emissions trading that you don't apply to any other market.
The solution to climate change must rely to an important extent on market mechanisms - it's too complex an issue to deal with using command-and-control. That means accepting that some people will make money out of trading - and that yes, sometimes trading will go bad. So? We've got a planet at stake; it's crazy to cut off our future to spite Goldman Sachs's face.
I've been suspicious of this meme since rightie concern trolls showed up here and elsewhere bragging about how Wall Street is already planning how to make a killing on cap-and-trade. For one, speculators typically don't explain how they're going to manipulate markets before they do.
...if the consensus of the economic experts is grim, the consensus of the climate experts is utterly terrifying. At this point, the central forecast of leading climate models - not the worst-case scenario but the most likely outcome - is utter catastrophe, a rise in temperatures that will totally disrupt life as we know it, if we continue along our present path. How to head off that catastrophe should be the dominant policy issue of our time.
American prosperity has always been driven by the steady supply of abundant, affordable energy. Particularly in Alaska, we understand the inherent link between energy and prosperity, energy and opportunity, and energy and security. Consequently, many of us in this huge, energy-rich state recognize that the president's cap-and-trade energy tax would adversely affect every aspect of the U.S. economy.
There is no denying that as the world becomes more industrialized, we need to reform our energy policy and become less dependent on foreign energy sources. But the answer doesn't lie in making energy scarcer and more expensive! Those who understand the issue know we can meet our energy needs and environmental challenges without destroying America's economy.
Ezra Klein recently noted that 1 in 4 coal-state Democrats voted against the recent cap-and-trade bill in the House, and saw that as a reason for optimism:
Even so, that means only one-in-four of the coal state Democrats voted no. I'd like to see those results drilled down to coal-dependent districts, but still, that's quite a bit less parochial defection than one might imagine. Indeed, hailing from a coal state wasn't nearly as strong a predictor of a given representative's vote than whether his district voted for Barack Obama. While one in four Democrats in coal states voted against cap-and-trade, three in five Democrats in districts that McCain carried voted against the bill. Similarly, seven of the eight Republicans who voted for the bill hailed from districts that Obama carried.
Another way of putting this is that the evidence suggests that this vote was less about parochial interests than partisanship and ideology. Plenty of Democrats from coal states made the judgment that they could defend this legislation to their constituents.
What's more interesting is that a quarter of the coal state Dems voted against the bill even though it had already been massively watered down to reflect coal state interests. In its current state, Waxman-Markey has very little effect on coal state interests for at least the next decade, and possibly for more like 20 years. But even so, lots of coal state Dems voted against it despite the fact that passage is a major goal of the party leadership, it's a major goal of the president, and it's the right thing to do. I'd call that pretty damn parochial.
But it may not be pressure from the coal industry that decides this thing in the Senate; instead, according to a New York Times report, it may be agricultural interests that does it in. And consider this insight from public policy professor, Barry Rabe:
[Agriculture] organizations wield greater clout in the Senate, because members there must be protective of an entire state, rather than a small congressional district, he said. With a huge swath of the country containing farmland, the complaints raise the possibility that a group will gain the ear of a sympathetic member of Congress with the power to filibuster, he said.
Sens. Baucus and Tester were singled out as especially vulnerable to the beef industry on the topic.
I'd also assume that energy lobbies would enjoy the same advantages over their states' Senators, and that coal-state defection would be at a higher rate than 1-in-4. And given that Montana is both a coal and agricultural state...I'd say we're not going to see support from Jon and Max on a cap-and-trade bill...unless we let them know anything else would be unacceptable.
Man watching the global-warming deniers contort reason to sow doubt among the public is painful to watch. Yesterday the meme was that cap-and-trade legislation is expensive, it'll mean jobs and taxes. (Not so much.) Today, it's that global warming is a big, fat hoax.
Here we go again.
All you need to know is that there's near unanimity that the climate is warming, and that human activity is contributing to the warming. Among those scientific institutes that say global warming is real and supported by science include NASA, NOAA, National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological Society, EPA, The Royal Society of the UK, American Geophysical Union, American Institute of Physics, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Royal Academy of Canada, Russian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Australian Academy of Sciences, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Academy of Sciences...
BP and Shell acknowledged that global warming is real. Even Exxon - the big baddie that orchestrated and funded the climate-change-denial movement - admits global warming is real and something should be done about it.
So if you're like Senator James Inhofe and believe climate change is the "greatest hoax perpetrated on the American people," you've got to set aside reason to do so. After all, what manner of hoax could so infiltrate nearly all of the major scientific organizations throughout he world? And even include the energy companies to stand to benefit the most financially from climate change skepticism? Inhofe attacks those that insist climate change is real as members of a "religion" - yet it's only faith that supports the paranoia of the denial movement in the face of so much overwhelming evidence, faith that nearly all of the scientific community and government leaders from around the world would work in concert to achieve...what, exactly? Sadly, the duplicitous goal these people have is never explicitly stated.
(And does anyone else find it ironic that, in his speech shortly after he calls for the debate on climate change to be based on the "fundamental principles of science," he recommends Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" as an appropriate reference text? Which is, you know, fiction?)
To me, it reeks of politics. Like health-care reform, it appears that Republicans are set to block any and all Democratic legislation. And to do so in this case - the cap-and-trade bill up for vote in the House today - they're essentially sowing doubt as to the very existence of climate change.
Which seems incredibly short-sighted, if you ask me.
Whoa! It looks like the Republican party fax was busy this morning sending out marching orders to the rank-and-file. Today's topic? Cap and trade!
First, I saw this bit of Eric-Cantor-inspired agitprop on Dennis Rehberg's Facebook page, claiming a cap-and-trade system would cause job losses and be, in effect, a tax on middle-class households. George Will lays it on, too, citing a study from a Spanish libertarian (and paid commenter for a US energy industry front group) claiming Spain's unemployment rate stems from its commitment to green energy projects. (Odd, no mention of investment banks.) Michelle Malkin, naturally, can't stand being left behind, and piles on with a gratuitous sliming of Al Gore, comparing him to a pig.
In response, I present you with a pair of Ezra Klein posts.
First, the CBO scored the current cap-and-trade bill in the House, and found it would cost households about $165 for the average household per year.
Which is cheap if you consider the CBO's analysis of climate change literature, and the projected change in temperature to the end of the 21st century...and you realize how much economic damage climate change would do, if unchecked.
I haven't really looked into the present cap-and-trade bill. (I will.) I admit there may be problems with it. (Is it being rushed?) But in a sense, this issue is even more crucial than health-care reform. After all, if climate change science is correct, we're headed towards eco-disaster.
So, yeah. The GOPers and their minions are trotting out the "taxes" line - but, again, it's a very selfish, very self-centered philosophy, isn't it? And it's grossly irresponsible. When you hear some conservative spout off about morals being the root cause of American decline, just nod and say, yeah, there's too much short-sighted selfishness and greed.
